This one's going to get heated...

 
  • This one's going to get heated...

    http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/db0/how-to-respond-to-a-used-to-be-an-atheist#comments

    Some comments in the comment section of a recent post are interesting.
    It's been a while since we've all had a meaty debate.

    Respond in that comment section ONLY if you are willing to be reasonable and polite, address a commenter directly, or comment on the original post. All relatively off topic discussion should occur here.

    As well as debate on an aspect I find interesting.
    Many here consider themselves to be New Atheists. How do we avoid the appearance of his strawman as stated:
    "- rejection of any deity, religion or scripture as complete nonsense and nothing but a product of delusional imagination
    - reason is the only function of the human mind by which one can grasp reality
    - rejection of anything that cannot be proven or measured using the scientific method
    - rejection of anything asserted via subjective means and acceptance of only what can be proven in an objective way
    - humanistic and leftist ideals"


    There are many things wrong with it, but regardless of those things, I have found that this is the stereotype I am most frequently presented with when non-atheists (either theists, agnostics, or 'atheists but not one of those NEW athests') try to discuss atheism / New Atheism. And to those who believe this stereotype is more or less on point, what makes you believe that we believe this?

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
  • I think it's fairly simple, they think new atheists (whatever this is) are like this because they judge by the prominent atheists they know.

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • The problem I have is that the judgments are wrong. They say things like "OMG you worship dawkins and hitchens" then when they try to explain what Dawkins or Hitchens (or any number of authors) say, it gets butchered, like THIS.

    Its like claiming that Dr. Seuss tells children to murder their family in Green Eggs and Ham. Just not there...

    There's no problem a few frag grenades can't fix.

    Cookies for Godlessness
    My Twin in life, love, mind, and music: ISoS
    The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be spirit. -Nietzsche
  • I personally just think he got a very skewed view about Dawkins and his "mass" of followers. If you are obssessed about a certain thing, it's easy to get lost and see things are larger than they are because that's what you only focus on and you lose your perspective to things.

    I mean, if you'd study the black metal movement for an extended amount of time you would also probably think they are everywhere and are much larger in numbers than they are because a lot of members are so vocal and they like to take up space in mass media and so on, but when comparing black metal as a subgenre in terms of popularity and active musicians it's one of the smallest. I think same logic applies to this so called NA.

    As much as I agree with that there's a new form of atheism emerging that's much more aggressive than what I'm used to, I'm also noticing that a lot of its advocates are very young people and young people are by definition very aggressive and vocal because it's a part of how teenagers shape their identities and become individuals. I'm quite sure that a lot of these people that would be so called NA will grow out of it, because currently atheism is such a fad.

    I would also like to add that I doubt many of these people would for example go and demonstrate for atheism on the streets. They are only vocal on the internet where they can remain anynomous (or among friends) and the language itself is more aggressive because internet allows for more aggressive language use.

    That's why I think his major fault in the first place is basing his judgements from the internet.

    • ISoS sa...
    • Användare
    • 1 mar 2011, 00:43
    The part that perplexes me the most is the insistence that we follow some kind of "dogma"?

    My other half: Anath
    Read Black/Death Metal reviews here!: Subjected to Metal
  • ISoS said:
    The part that perplexes me the most is the insistence that we follow some kind of "dogma"?


    I think the reason why he says that about you in particular is because you sound very rigid (this is a fact!) when you argue :P I may be wrong, though.

    • ISoS sa...
    • Användare
    • 3 mar 2011, 02:13
    LeaTelamon said:
    ISoS said:
    The part that perplexes me the most is the insistence that we follow some kind of "dogma"?


    I think the reason why he says that about you in particular is because you sound very rigid (this is a fact!) when you argue :P I may be wrong, though.


    *sigh* I know I am like that. I just think that if you're going to talk about something complex, you should talk about it in a level of detail that is proportional to the level of complexity.

    Look at the level of detail you put into the social sciences. The social systems are horrifically complex things, and your grueling detail reflects that.

    My other half: Anath
    Read Black/Death Metal reviews here!: Subjected to Metal
  • ISoS said:
    LeaTelamon said:
    ISoS said:
    The part that perplexes me the most is the insistence that we follow some kind of "dogma"?


    I think the reason why he says that about you in particular is because you sound very rigid (this is a fact!) when you argue :P I may be wrong, though.


    *sigh* I know I am like that. I just think that if you're going to talk about something complex, you should talk about it in a level of detail that is proportional to the level of complexity.

    Look at the level of detail you put into the social sciences. The social systems are horrifically complex things, and your grueling detail reflects that.


    I agree with you though, I just think you and him got completely different vantage points, as I addressed also on ACP. I just kind of feel that he thinks he knows more about stuff than he actually does.

  • Hahaha, he did the "I'm not going to respond anymore". He also constantly refused responding to my posts (why?) even though I constantly posted to help him to clarify what he's actually trying to say. Maybe he just felt outsmarted? I suspect the reason why he eventually only responded to you Isos is because you were the easiest one to respond to, because your views were so much more strongly tied to natural sciences and he seems to reject the values of natural sciences.

    Suffice to say, I am disappoint.

  • Actually he did post once more, but in any case, give him a break; it's not the usual "I won't post anymore", he has after all posted a lot already, there's no point in keeping this up forever.
    To be honest, I stopped reading most of it a couple of days ago, but generally both you and Isos focus too much on your own fields. You do well to correct him (or anyone else) if he speaks nonsense, but sometimes you do seem to demand a very specific, almost profound knowledge from him that one can't realistically expect. There's a difference between pointing out his errors and asking him to address his points in a scientific, precisely accurate way, at least when the discussion is "casual" and the subject isn't strictly scientific.

    Bottomline, you're both intimidating:) I'm pointing it out because I remember there was this girl at one of the christian groups that had written something like "i support positive monarchy" or smth and when both I and Isos misunderstood, she was like "wtf, HOW can yOU NOt know what the difference between positive and negative shit is??ZOMG".

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • VampyreAngel said:
    Actually he did post once more, but in any case, give him a break; it's not the usual "I won't post anymore", he has after all posted a lot already, there's no point in keeping this up forever.
    To be honest, I stopped reading most of it a couple of days ago, but generally both you and Isos focus too much on your own fields. You do well to correct him (or anyone else) if he speaks nonsense, but sometimes you do seem to demand a very specific, almost profound knowledge from him that one can't realistically expect. There's a difference between pointing out his errors and asking him to address his points in a scientific, precisely accurate way, at least when the discussion is "casual" and the subject isn't strictly scientific.

    Bottomline, you're both intimidating:) I'm pointing it out because I remember there was this girl at one of the christian groups that had written something like "i support positive monarchy" or smth and when both I and Isos misunderstood, she was like "wtf, HOW can yOU NOt know what the difference between positive and negative shit is??ZOMG".


    The difference is that he keeps adding values to things without reflecting that he does, then he comes in and claims that me and Isos are wrong for adding values ourselves. That's the part I do find to be the most annoying, and I do keep pointing it out.

    I'm not strictly keeping to my fields either, especially as the discussion moved on to a more theoretical level. I don't have a degree in philosophy, but a lot of his questions are already answered there so I don't see why he keeps doing the "but there's no answer!!!!".

  • yeah, I jumped off the discussion train when the posts started becoming too long, but you just seem somewhat pedantic at times. Which is good as far as I'm concerned, but who listens to me?


    Also, as much as I appreciate a well placed "Z", does it stand for something in "zomg" or is it just there because everyone appreciates a well placed "Z"?

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  • I'm one of the "New Atheists" you guys are talking about, i was raised Christian. I always thought something felt awfully fake whenever I was taught about God or I went to church; something wasn't compatible with reality. When I was nine I started reading the bible, in middle school I learned Egyptian history, in high school I learned about Greek mythology, history and religion. In my own time I studied other religions. After I finished the bible I knew for a fact all religions were untrue. They all have incredibly similar stories as well as many flaws and contradictions. When I got into Atheism at first it felt a lot different, but now it all feels the same. I feel as if Atheism and Monotheism have become two sides of a small coin. It's almost as if Atheism is a religion now instead of a belief. While I am technically an atheist, I do not like associating with a lot of Atheists because a good deal of them follow someone's words like Dawkins without thinking. They're still Sheep who follow the beat of a drum. The only Atheists I can even associate with are older ones who aren't one because it's a "fad."

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.